Badger Democracy has obtained  information through open records requests and personal interviews that point to a close circle of friends working together to push the State Supreme Court into taking on the Voter ID question – just in time for the November election.

Conspiracy may be too strong a word, but the trio of David Prosser (Supreme Court Justice), JB VanHollen (Wisconsin Attorney General), and Brian Schimming (lobbyist, state GOP vice chair, former Prosser staffer) have motive, opportunity, and are in position to make it happen. The three have a definitive history; appearing together at Americans For Prosperity conferences (as speakers/presenters) in 2009, 2010, and frequent state GOP events as recently as 2012.

Badger then goes on to say.

AG VanHollen made a second request of the Court to take the case in late August; in spite of the law being declared unconstitutional by two lower courts. There are also two Federal cases pending against the Voter ID law in Judge Lynn Adelman’s  Eastern District Court. The most compelling of which is “Frank v. Walker” (Case 2:11-cv-01128); challenging whether the law violates the  fundamental right to vote under the Equal Protection Clause, violates the Twenty-Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments as an unconstitutional poll tax, and violates the Equal Protection Clause in arbitrarily refusing to accept certain identification documents.

What badger ignores is though VanHollen is a Republican he is duty bound to defend laws legislated by elected officials, he also ignores the liberal bias of the two lower courts that found the law unconstitutional.  He is correct that there are federal suits pending such as Frank v Walker but ignores the fact that Wisconsin law was patterned after Indiana law and all of the questions raised by Frank v Walker were raised and resolved by SCOTUS in CRAWFORD v. MARION COUNTY ELECTION BD

On the issue of Poll Tax the Supreme Court wrote on page 7.

It rejected the argument that the law should be judged by the same strict standard applicable to a poll tax because the burden on voters was offset by the benefit of reducing the risk of fraud. . . .In Anderson v. Celebrezze,  460 U. S. 780 (1983), however, we confirmed the general rule that “evenhanded restrictions that protect the integrity and reliability of the electoral process itself”

On Page 13 of the Supreme Court Hearing they wrote.

“A good registration list will ensure that citizens are only registered in one place, but election officials still need to make sure that the person arriving at a polling site is the same one that is named on the registration list. In the old days and in small towns where everyone knows each other, voters did not need to identify themselves. But in the United States, where 40 million people move each year, and in urban areas where some people do not even know the people living in their own apartment building let alone their precinct, some form of identification is needed.

The burdens that are relevant to the issue before us are those imposed on persons who are eligible to vote but not possess a current photo identification that complies with the requirements of SEA 483. The fact that most voters already possess a valid driver’s license, or some other form of acceptable identification, would not save the statute under our reasoning in Harper,  if the State re-quired voters to pay a tax or a fee to obtain a new photo identification. But just as other States provide free voter registration cards, the photo identification cards issued by Indiana’s BMV are also free.

 Wisconsin like Indiana offers free voter ID’s and the assurtion that it equates to a poll tax is false as already rulled. Also the equal protection clause of  the 14th amendment was answered.

The different ways in which Indiana’s law affects different voters are no more than different impacts of the single burden that the law uniformly imposes on all voters: To vote in person, everyone must have and present a photo identification that can be obtained for free. This is a generally applicable, nondiscriminatory voting regulation. The law’s universally applicable requirements are eminently reasonable because the burden of acquiring, possessing, and showing a free photo identification is not a significant increase over the usual voting burdens, and the State’s stated interests are sufficient to sustain that minimal burden.

 I guess what is really amaizing is why progressives don’t want to protect the integrity of the voting process.  Could it be they can’t win without reserecting the dead or bussing in activist from out of state?